Skip to main content

Because every mother wants their son to grow up and eat a doctor.

Dolittle
(2020)

(SPOILERS) Roundly slated, as if its troubled production and rejigged release dates condemn it to purgatory without due consideration, Dolittle isn’t nearly the abomination critics would have you believe. It makes an affable, inoffensively watchable family entertainment, lacking the bloat of the Rex Harrison version or the shamelessness of Eddie Murphy’s and one never quite at ease with itself or sure of what it wants to be, but largely underserving of being hung out to dry as the latest example of Hollywood excess; there are other, far more deserving recipients, usually found in any given calendar quarter of any given studio’s roster of releases.

Yes, sure, there’s more than enough about Dolittle that reeks of grand folly – although probably nothing quite so extensively so as Rex’s infamous, infamously Best Picture nominated incarnation – from Team Downey approving to Stephen Gaghan to direct on down (there’s nothing in Gaghan’s CV as writer, let alone director, to suggest he was a good fit for the task). And yes, there are quite believable horror stories to be found that he was clueless over how to integrate the effects into the picture (such that there was no blocking thereof, and that it ended up bizarrely animal-lite). Hence Jonathan Liebesman being brought in to beef things up on the effects/ animals side, although why anyone would ask him to help salvage a picture…

But Dolittle’s a competent latest incarnation, one that doesn’t outstay its welcome or become excessively bogged down its animal antics; to hear the stories, you’d think it had been transformed  into a lowest common denominator fart fest after the fact. Yes, Frances de la Tour’s dragon needs an enema, and the creatures tend to the vernacular, but it’s a balance that would be expected in, and pragmatically needed for, a family movie; from the evidence here, I can quite believe that Gaghan’s original take tended to the dour and mournful (it’s notable that Dolittle’s wife remains dead, whereas the standard for this sort of fare would have been for her to suddenly show up, miraculously still alive and having had empowering adventures of her own).

If Dolittle lacks flair on the part of its director(s), it still looks quite pretty, thanks to Guillermo Del Toro regular DP Guillermo Navarro. The roster of locations – particularly King Rassouli’s island – put a significant wad of the money spent on screen, and the creature designs, with the exception of gorilla Chee-Chee (Rami Malek), tend to the agreeably photo-real. Gaghan’s screenplay was rewritten by various parties (Dan Gregor and Doug Mand are co-credited, with story going to Thomas Shepherd, but Chris McKay did significant rewrites, and John Whittington was also involved, while Downey naturally and unwisely had his say).

The impression one takes away most is that of an attempt to make a certain kind of movie without the necessary creatives on board to foster the same. So Downey attempts to deliver a Depp (as Depp was a decade ago), complete with an eccentric English accent (a soft take on Windsor Davies), but lacking anything truly eccentric in this rendition of Dolittle. Or anything to promote real empathy with his character, heroic or otherwise. He’s an indulgently grieving widower finding himself again, the spark for an indulgently out-of-touch character actor turned star who has spent a decade insulated by Marvel. The picture lacks the comic canvass of the Murphy version, despite the endeavours of the reshoots, so the funny creatures are at best only mildly entertaining (ironically, it’s Ralph Fiennes’ tiger, played straight, who comes across best).

The framework of the plot does, however, provide an impetus and a more coherent one than the 60s production (the original title was The Voyage of Doctor Dolittle, but Hollywood seems to think less words are best, as its reneging on Bird of Prey’s mouthful shows). Dolittle must save a dying Queen Victoria (Jessie Buckley), who is in that dire state at the behest of Jim Broadbent’s Lord Badgley. He in turn is supported by Michael Sheen’s Dr Mudfly. Broadbent is given nothing to chew on, aside from a fat cheque. Sheen has slightly more going on, but it would have been nice to see him offered enough to make a memorable villain. Antonio Banderas has fun as Rassouli, the pirate king.

The picture’s main problem is that it flounders in its attempts to move out of second gear. There are nice ideas (a humpback whale as an outboard motor), and as crude as it is, the enema “climax” has its moments (the appearance of bagpipes; "We've got the whole Spanish army in there"). But there’s never the sense that inspiration is part of the equation. Emma Thompson’s talking parrot Polynesia is used to paper over the presumed editing gaps between versions, which at least means the movie doesn’t show its scars. As for the kids, Harry Collett and Carmel Laniado are inoffensive.

One might assume the critics relished the chance to give Dolittle a conscience-free kicking, knowing they didn’t have to check themselves in the face of wrath from the Twitterati. Compared to the aforementioned Birds of Prey, for example – which had largely positive reviews – this is never less than competent. Sure, it lacks kinetic energy, but it isn’t dull. I’m probably damning the picture with faint praise, as it’s both over familiar and unremarkable, but it’s also quite likeable. It would have gained points if Downey Jr had the rights to sing The Vegetarian, and if it had taken more cues from Sheen’s tendency to overplay than the animals’ potential to offer a redux of the Murphy incarnation, but to restress the opening paragraph, Dolittle really isn’t any worse than umpteen approved and certified fresh kids’ movies. It simply got the short straw of production hell and consequent green light for opprobrium.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for